... Either way, if the campaign wants to be philosophically consistent in either direction, it should either:
A) Have an anti-branding, 100% grassroots campaign - and really do something revolutionary with a presidential campaign.
B) Actually care about it's presentation, and do something outstanding that the whole country will respect.
A middle ground (which was 2008's approach) is really just a waste of a presidential campaign.
http://ronpauldesigns.blogspot.com/2011/04/ron-paul-should-not-brand.html
Totally in agreement... It has to be one or the other, to show consistency. I personally prefer the anti-campaign, shows more of the passion that this man inspires in all of us. It looks messier probably but it is also very different, since all the modern campaigns will hire designers for all the visuals. It got to the point that nothing is left to chance with the other candidates, all is slick and conceptualized, proper advertising strategies. Not sure if we could compete with that nor we even should try to. The R3VOLUTION bit was great, not too pretty but clearly recognizable as of RP campaign.
Going slick will make us look like the others in the war of visual campaign. If there is no other choice, fonts and other representational imagery has to be indeed thought out, simple but loaded... Branding is not an easy task. It could diminish the man, but no doubt could inspire and make people feel better. After all, flags are a form of branding, don't tread on me and such... branding is not a new idea or totally bad one.